fred johnson

Bad attitude loses volunteers. Work to get receipts, support the team and find a way to get them reimbursed if they had costs.

What type of "costs" ? Can you provide more detail? I believe in both getting receipts but also getting those who incur expenses reimbursed. So I'd first have to ask ... what "costs"? Project costs? Eagle rank pins, etc? Eagle court of honor? There is a lot to be said for keeping the peace and finding a way to work together. If we are sure the person had those expenses or will have those expenses, IMHO it is sufficient to write a note explaining the reason and how the amount was determined. IMHO, this is really no different than if you have a camp out that is seven hours drive round trip and you reimburse $20 for each person in the car. The drivers have no receipt. It doesn't cover all the costs. But as treasurer and troop leaders you can easily defend the reimbursement because you knew they had at least that cost. There is a lot to be said for putting egos aside, keeping the peace and working together.

You identify an interesting point that many COs are really an adjunct organization and not the organization itself. Examples: KofC & PTOs. And as you also pointed out, it is an argument left best for lawyers. I'd find it hard to believe that my KofC chapter is not covered by a separation of church and state, freedom of religion and mainly a ministerial exception. Rosaries said before the meeting. Prayers before, during and after meetings. Virtually all funds given either to the church or to Catholic charities for the poor, homeless or dying. Our membership is broad and open, but also limited to Catholic men in good standing. Even if a legal weakness was found, then just charter under the organization and not the adjunct. Then have a member of the adjunct be the charter org rep. There will be lawyers in this for years, but even if BSA membership is opened wide up ... you can't force a charter org to accept a member. Charter orgs have always had the right to filter both youth and adult membership. That has never been a point of discussion in these channels. If BSA does accept homosexual leaders, it is automatically the local option. It's the ministerial exception that allows religious schools to fire teachers for immorality violations. BSA controls program and structure and "BSA membership", but charter orgs control the units and effectively "unit membership." Gates is right. The current policies are unsustainable and the policies are wrong. BSA is asking churches to charter units even when the churches don't have the same morally straight definition. BSA needs to resolve their own self-contradicting policies first. And that is to stop filtering membership by sexual orientation. I am glad that BSA won Dale v. BSA as it reinforces the bill of rights. But BSA was wrong to pick this fight and wrong to try to speak for "all" the charter organizations.

I have to respectfully disagree. BSA is in a unique position to let the local option work as the unit leaders are not selected by the BSA. The leaders are selected by the charter organizations and as the charter organization uses the BSA program as a youth program within their larger program, they essentially have shield. For example, it would be hard to argue that a troop chartered by a Catholic church, meeting at a Catholic church and where the leaders are chosen and assigned by the Catholic church does not already have a local option. BSA membership should be open to all, but charter organizations should be able to exercise their local choice as they always have. If this was Girl Scouts, 4H or another organization, I'd have to agree with you. But with Boy Scouts, BSA owns the program and the structure and the charter organizations oversees unit member signup.

IMHO, the title of this article is dead on right. "You are the district." Bad attitude about the district pretty much sets your fate for a long time. Willing to be flexible and give it a chance, things improve. Willing to contribute and help the district, the district drastically improves. In my district, the training is so so, but we have lots of opportunities and places to go. The round tables are hit and miss. The unit commissioners are like fairy tale unicorns; they don't exist. But the activities are regular if not monthly. Pinewood derby. Scouting for food. Cub Annapolis. Fall camporee. OA coordination and conclaves. Winter activities. Units with not much going on can leverage the district fairly well to add program elements. Districts are like all things in life ... you get out what you put into it. I'm sure there are bad districts, but my experience is things only improve when you get involved and give it a chance.

Can you give the link that you used to measure pages 20 and 35? I've looked on the copy here and find no such quote. I used http://www.skautai.lt/document/download/id/1982 and found Camp Yarn #4 saying about patrol leaders ... "Each patrol chooses a boy as leader. He is called the Patrol Leader." I will give you that when starting a troop, there are scoutmaster handbooks originally that talked about selecting promising kids to be taught skills so they could pass them on and become leaders. But that is very different than an ongoing patrol leader selection practice. Your Roland Phillips document is fascinating. I will be reading it. http://www.thedump.scoutscan.com/Patrol%20System.pdf On page six, it repeatedly says patrols are a "small permanent group". Other than that, his comments hit on both sides of patrol structures. But I do fully agree with a "permanent group" as being a key element. That is what promotes scout spirit and loyalty. BSA has always promoted scouts choosing their own leaders with some limitations. ... I am less against mixed age patrols as much as I'm very very much against assigning patrols and assigning the leaders. Let the scouts choose. It's their program.

I apologize if I'm strong opinionated on this topic, but I've seen both and I do have a very very strong opinion on this. It just reflects my experience. We keep giving lip service to the statement that the patrol is the fundamental unit of scouting and the heart of all success. But then we create unnatural patrols. Joining one-by-one or as a group isn't the issue. And age just reflects potential friendships. It's those friendships that keep kids coming back and wanting to do things together. IMHO, we should measure success by how much the patrol wants to stay together and do things TOGETHER AND ON THEIR OWN. Go hiking. Go canoeing. Play games. Or just hang together. Kids will sign up and participate when they see their own friends show up and participate. But if a patrol decides to go camping or canoeing or ... and they see one friend going and the rest being very different ages / state, the vast majority of scouts won't go. And some patrols will even be prevented from some desirable activities because their whole patrol won't be able to go due to a 16 year old having very different capabilities than an 11 or 12 year old. My experience is that you may be able to get kids to stick around with their patrol for duties, but they will spend time and want to be with their friends. That's the natural order. It's by leveraging those friendships that we really get the kids working together and owning the program. There is no perfect solution and IMHO some leaders experiences tint the results. But I want my kids to want to stay with their patrol their whole scouting career.

It's unfair and wrong to assert traditional scouting used assigned patrols or used mixed age patrols. It is more accurate to say troops have done it differently over the years and people generally defend what they learned when they joined scouting. And it's more accurate to say those who prescribe a modern age "traditional scouting" program use patrols of mixed ages. References ... http://www.thedump.scoutscan.com/s4b.html BP in "Scouting for Boys" simply said 6 to 8 boys. BP said patrols choose their own leader; not assigned. No discussion about age. That's it. http://www.thedump.scoutscan.com/yarn00.pdf In 1951's Lord Rowallan introduction poitned out that scouting started as boys forming their own patrols and looking for a scoutmaster. And that boys naturally grouped into older boys because they wanted to do more. Thus creating the concept of senior scouts. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gutenberg.org%2Ffiles%2F29558%2F29558-h%2F29558-h.htm&ei=hSJdVZvEBYWKyATWtIDQDg&usg=AFQjCNHh1bAIrFG2zwmIN7qY0PsKcfqhaw&sig2=g5xG1kwAiDZN4KbRuPUeCw&bvm=bv.93756505,d.aWw The 1911 Boy Scout Handbook had little to say about ages except that the easiest way to join was by finding an existing patrol. No mention of age. It was very different back then. Packs and troops were not stalking schools for new scouts. https://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC37928351&id=BykKAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA1&lpg=RA1-PA1&dq=scout&as_brr=1&hl=en#v=snippet&q=patrol&f=false The 1913 Handbook for Scoutmasters on page 13 says "In assigning the boys to the patrols it is advisable to group boys as near the same age as possible, taking into consideration the natural instincts of boys and their desire for association with one another. This is often a more important factor than age." Summary ... For patrols to succeed, association is important. Strong life long friendships are the result of successful patrols. As such, age is a natural choice because boys of the same age tend to associate together. But adjusting for friendships is okay too. A key point though is the patrol members need to want to associate with each other. That's why many of us believe it's best to put all new same age scouts in a BSA proscribed "new scout patrol." After that, IMHO, let the scouts choose patrols as reflects their friendships, associations and desires for adventure. Breaking up "healthy" friendships or natural associations is self-defeating. Reorganizing patrols is dangerous.

Recently when looking at an Eagle project proposal the "mom" who was sitting near by asked what was the least he would have to do. The son was doing fine and owning his proposal and it was a fine idea. I just looked at the mom and said I wasn't going there.

Not often I agree with those people in this thread. ... "a gang of good friends" IMHO, it's wrong and self-defeating to over define it. You are listing characteristics and good characteristics, but with too much detail. IMHO, it's also wrong for the adults to try to judge our patrols against the perfect patrols or try to push down changes / attitudes to create the perfect patrols. I really like the definition that a patrol is "a gang of good friends". Then through encouraging that patrol to do things (camp, cook, play games, socialize, etc), it becomes a mechanism through which the scoutmaster can naturally teach lessons about life, leadership and skills. And through those lessons and those activities, the scouts will build their bonds of brotherhood. As a unit leader (not SM or ASM), one of my highest priorities is to get the extraneous adults away from scouts.

We're a large troop and it works very well. Your mileage may vary.

We use the approach that the web and email lists are for adult communication. All face-to-face coordination and at-troop communication is by and for the scouts.

It's not what I'm talking about ... but Fortune 500 companies do as you describe. It's often called the fast track. But that's not what is being described. "recruiting from outside BSA" ... I've seen that attempted many times ... usually as cold calling or paper mail of adult eagle scouts who has mailing addresses in the area. Most times you get zero response. Direct face-to-face asking is very difficult because those who you would ask are already busy. So, you either get no responses or you get the type of volunteers who do more damage than good. The challenge is viewing districts as a one sided one dimensional thing. Districts serve local units, but local units support the district. In my experience, if every troop had one parent help at the district level, then you would have an absolutely outstanding district.

Nothing sad at all. Sound fine.

Districts won't cease. Period. Districts may be combined or redrawn. And then staff mostly flows into the re-created district. So if you have district staffers you don't get along with now, you will probably continue to have district staffers who you don't get along with. If you think your district serves you poorly, then that will mostly continue. That's just how it is. So it's not about ceasing? It's about having a poor relationship with your district. The direct impact is ... ----- Poor support. Professional scouters don't have time to support each unit directly as they have many units and they will do what gets them the biggest result. And that's through working with their district staff. If you don't have a district or have a poor district staff ... OR your troop has a poor relationship with the district, your experience with the professional scouters will be much much worse. Essentially, professional scouters don't support individual units except administratively. The vast majority of the support happens through the district. ... So if you don't want to mend your relationship with your district, fine. But you are going it alone mostly then. ----- Pretending you can go alone. You can't take care of business without YOUR district's help. Merit badge counselors are a district positions and approved by the district. Districts process registration, advancement and approve eagle projects. Districts administer popcorn sales. District staff contacts the membership lead contacts. It's fine to go to other districts for camporees and training, but you can't replace what your district does for you. You might not value it or want to recognize it, but they do. That's why I'd suggest fixing the relationship.

Your inverting a truism. Of course, districts server units. But it ignores the core point. District staff has almost always come from current unit level scouters. And for most of their time in the district, they are serving their troops too. My question ... How many adults in your troop help at the district level ? Noise. Districts don't have a budget and can't hold money. Districts charge to cover expenses for events such as camp outs, but any excess has to be given to the council. District scouters are volunteers who just happen to have the same faces as scouters in many troops in your district. Sure. But without units supporting their district all you will have is a crappy district. I've been to many district camporees. I've never seen one fully run by district staff and definitely not with district resources. Even if coordinated by district staffers, the parts of the camporee are run by scouts from the troops or scouters in those troops and almost always materials (stoves, flags, fuel, etc) are from the units. Maybe if you don't support your district and the rest of the units stop supporting your district, maybe the district will cease to exist and your unit will be assigned to another district. But then you will eventually become just as dissatisfied with the short comings in that district. Invest in your district becoming better and I bet it will become a much better district.

My son's recruiter often said "Attitude is everything." IMHO, that attitude kills districts. There are few magical district scouters that exist just to serve scouting. Most district scouters are ALSO active in troops or packs. While I agree you can't force troops to attend or support district activities, districts are much stronger when many troops have volunteers that help staff district positions.

Agreed. But from what I've seen, scouting has more than it's fair share of quirky adults. On all sides. So when I hear two sides are not getting along, it's as often the accuser as then accused.

I'm sure he was frustrated and he'd probably alienated a few people too. Camporees are under the district activities team. District camping chair is about promotion of camping and making sure everything is good to go for camping. See pages 11-13 of the district committee book. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/commissioner/pdf/34739.pdf I'm sure your friend could affect change, but he'd first need to demonstrate he was doing his own job well and consistent. People won't trust you to do their job too if your not doing your own really well first. And telling them how to do their job takes real skill, more skill then knowing how to run a good camporee. Volunteers often do this. They take one job wanting to get involved to see something else change.

So very very true. There is a strong bias and sexism against boys starting right from the start in elementary school.

I must admit that when I see the arguing about protections, pin numbers, etc, my eyes roll back inside my skull. Debit cards are used by hundreds of millions of people, if not billions. It's a standard practice and probably as safe or safer than writing checks. The card is not the controversy. IMHO, the real controversy is this BSA statement. Volunteers already donate hundreds of hours of their lives and their own funds to support their own participation and the participation of others. Now, there is a relatively easy and manageable way to simplify the life of volunteers. Instead of providing guidance to be successful, the suggestion is don't and let the volunteers take the hit again. IMHO, that's 100% wrong and not recognizing the Now, I don't believe every registered leader needs a pack/troop bank card, but it is reasonable to let the treasurer, scoutmaster/cubmaster, advancement person and "maybe" the camping coordinator. Treasurer needs a card so they can make deposits via ATM after the meetings. Scoutmaster needs one to pay the continual incidental expenses that occur during camp outs or meeting prep. Advancement person needs one to pay for the monthly advancements. Camping coord may benefit from one, but our solution is the camping coord makes reservations during unit meetings or leader meetings. So the treasurer or scoutmaster/cubmaster lends them their card.

... currently suffering sticker shock ... $12.99 for the new cub books. 50 cubs x $12.99 = $649.50. For years, our pack purchased the books for the cubs. It started as a $250 or so price years ago and it has been around $400 now. But with the new book, it will be $600+. So it begs the question ... do Cubs really need the new books to participate and advance ? Or would a well organized den leader benefit better from the $13 per cub that it would cost to purchase the books? Or should the pack just save the money. When we had parents buy the books themselves, we'd have 30% to 50% that would just never get the book or it would be so late getting the book it wasn't worth it. So it almost seems like an all or none. Buy for all or structure such that the books are not really used. It's a lot of money each year. We could throw two good parties or one good party with food for that much. ?????

I'm not judging you in black and white. I'm judging the behavior and it is our role to judge and to learn right from wrong. It is wrong. Embarrassment is negative discipline and explicitly against BSA positive discipline rules. That part is explicit. Further, it's the intentional inflicting embarrassment as your tool for punishment that is cruel and against all that we are supposed to teach our scouts. It went out the door with pointed dunce hats and shame. Perhaps some people get the joke. But those that need the lesson don't get the joke and don't learn the lesson you want. They learn resentment, not to trust and it's okay to be mean and inflict bad experiences on others as long as you can justify it.

That's less about cheating or not and more about teaching new leaders lessons in compassion and teaching how the scouting program works. Sometimes we get so caught up in the propaganda of the program that they lose sight of using advancement to keep scouts involved and progressing. For each person, it's a different starting point and a different rate of progress. So ... when new leaders step up, I think it's time for a strong discussion about the purpose of scouting and how to use advancement as a tool toward that purpose.

For our units, the bigger solution is to have visibility into the bank accounts. Multiple people with access to review the accounts. Also, our treasurer doesn't have a debit card. BUT ... he's the one who audits every purchase. If you purchase something, he notices and asks what it was for and wants some type of receipt.